Rating The Suspects.

[The Rookie Detective]

Thompson's training was virtually non-existent.

He scived off his classes and lost himself in the library more often than not.

His father gave him a lot of money for his practicing on Cadavers, yet he instead spent all his father's money on his drug addiction.

Thompson was seen as an exemplary writer, yet his prose was often driven by his somewhat diminished mental state.

Akin to a pot-head smoking too much weed, and writing any old tosh using random clever words and inexplicable phrasing that in reality meant very little to anyone except Thompson himself.

Over elaborate poems that are often non-sensical.

Coming from a drug addict, it's clear that Thompson was high as a kite when he was writing his so called masterpieces.

He was also physically weak and lacked the physical strength and prowess required by a killer who could pretty much decapitate with one cut.

That wasn't Thompson

He did fantasise about violence towards women, but there's no evidence he was ever violent to anyone...except the self-deprecation of himself by taking copious amount of drugs.

The idea that he was some kind of master surgeon is misleading, as he never completed any formal training, and any money he did get to help in his studies, was p***ed up the wall on drugs.


Thompson didn't have the fundermental requirements of a clinical psychopath.

Aside from being an oddball who wrote a lot of violent claptrap, his candidacy as the Ripper is about as strong as a one-dunk teabag job.

Incidentally, Thompson always wore his distinctive worn brown Ulster coat and carried a worn brown satchel...

Which perfectly matches the description of...

Erm...

The description of....

Er...


Nope, I give up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m not interested in your repeated script. I’m not interested in any of the things that you say on this subject. Your points have been rebutted with evidence and your, shall we say, ‘highly dodgy’ interpretations have been laid bare for the manipulations that they are. And as you refuse to counter any of the points sensibly or to answer direct questions you cannot be taken seriously. Thompson is an extremely weak suspect with nothing to commend him to our attention. Inventions don’t count in true crime I’m afraid.

And just for your information, I’m not changing the criteria due to Thompson (I only added him in the first place because he’s been named) We can all provide a lengthy list of serial killers who had no issue of problems with drink or drugs - Bundy, Sutcliffe, De Salvo to name only three. So why should we add a criteria which is by no means an indicator of someone being a serial killer? If I’d added - Legal Knowledge - I would be quite rightly accused of adding a criteria to favour Druitt.

No doubt if you created the list you would add - Wrote poetry?

Drink and drugs goes.

[Richard Patterson]

Some of you’ve you here have built a list of criteria you think applies to the Ripper. Let’s measure Thompson against them, because this is where the conversation always goes sideways — people dismiss him with a shrug instead of actually running the check.

• History of violence / against women: Thompson’s published poetry is mystical. His unpublished manuscripts are violent, obsessive, and specifically about cutting women and tearing out wombs. That isn’t generic bad temper — that’s a written rehearsal of the very mutilations seen in Whitechapel.
• Association with “unfortunates”: He lived rough in Spitalfields, among prostitutes, relying on them for food and shelter. He had a failed love affair with a Whitechapel prostitute which left him obsessed and broken. This isn’t distant contact — it is direct immersion.
• Geographical proximity: In 1888 Thompson shifted from Limehouse refuges into Spitalfields at the precise moment the murders peaked. His lodgings and his haunts map exactly onto the Ripper’s hunting ground.
• Motive / grievance toward women: His rejection by the prostitute “Ann” is attested by multiple sources. His later writing returns to themes of betrayal, punishment, and sanctified violence against women.
• Means: He studied medicine under Dreschfeld, dissecting human cadavers. He carried surgical instruments while homeless. Few suspects had this level of precise anatomical training.

Now, you want to exclude him because he was a laudanum addict. But that argument collapses once you read the medical facts. Thompson stopped laudanum in mid-1888 under Meynell’s urging. Withdrawal causes hallucinations, hyperaesthesia, and increased sexual drive — exactly the state Dr. Bond described in his police profile: “homicidal and erotic mania.” Saying “drug use weakens candidacy” ignores that in Thompson’s case, withdrawal heightened instability and drive.

The “wilful blindness” here is pretending none of this matters. Pretending his violent manuscripts don’t exist. Pretending his knives don’t matter. Pretending that being institutionalised at the Priory as the murders stop is coincidence. Pretending that Major Smith’s suspect profile — five traits, all of which Thompson uniquely matches — is meaningless.

And let’s be clear: I didn’t just invent this last week. I’ve been publishing Thompson’s biography as a Ripper candidate since well before 2013. Dozens of unrelated, independently attested facts in his life string directly to the murders:

• The cadaver training.
• The prostitute rejection.
• The knives he carried.
• The violent manuscripts.
• His presence in Spitalfields during the killings.
• His psychiatric collapse and confinement as the murders ceased.

Each strand is independent. Together they collapse coincidence.

So no — dismissing Thompson on the basis of “drink/drugs” isn’t just weak, it’s evasive. When the evidence is this convergent, pretending it doesn’t matter is not healthy scepticism. It’s wilful blindness.

If you want to argue against Thompson, then address the totality: the geography, the knives, the manuscripts, the training, the timing, the probability analysis. Until then, brushing him off with clichés about addiction is not an argument. It’s a refusal to look.

[The Rookie Detective]

I think alcohol and drugs use may add inadvertent bias to the poll.

History of Violence
History of Violence against women
History of association with unfortunates
Geographical proximity (opportunity)
Previous convictions
Known grievances towards women (motive)
Known skill or capability using a knife (means)

These are some of the criteria that are applicable.


While alcohol and drug use do increase the chances of an individual being violent in terms of their inhibitions being dropped, there is no evidence to support the idea that this would apply to a serial killer.

If anything, drug use and alcohol actually weaken a potential suspects viability as the Ripper.


Bs man for example clearly wasn't a psychopath (If Schwartz is to be believed) but rather a violent drunk.

Also, Bachert on your list has "0" for alcohol and drug use, but it was well documented that he regularly got drunk every week (on a Tuesday IIRC) and so he should score a point for that.
However, as I said, the alcohol and drug use potentially weakens candidacy as the Ripper, and so on that basis it also weakens Bachert.


Let's also take the attack on Emily Smith on 5th November 1892.
IMO, a failed Ripper attack committed by an injured/underperforming killer.
Emily noted that the man who tried to stab her mentioned specifically that he wasn't a drinker of alcohol, and was a teetotaller.
It appears the man got Emily tipsy and then chose his moment to strike just beside Shadwell railway arch; the killer's liking of assaulting women near train lines and arches being an interesting parallel.
He made a point of only drinking coffee IIRC.


These are just a few examples of course, but overall I'd say that a man known for heavy drinking, consuming drugs, walking around eating rubbish from the gutters etc... makes them less and not more likely to have been the Ripper.

I even think "age" is not particularly relevant, because the killer could have been aged anywhere from 16 to 75.

And it terms of police interest... i think that's potentially the most misleading statistic.

The police didn't have a clue about serial killers.

They were so busy focusing on drunks, vagabonds, Jews, and lunatics, that they had no real idea of what they were dealing with.

So having been suspected by the police at the time, may also have been completely wrong.

All subjective of course.

[The Rookie Detective]

I think it risks swaying the poll unfairly Chris. I’m guessing that it wont make a huge difference to the order.

I think alcohol and drugs use may add inadvertent bias to the poll.

History of Violence
History of Violence against women
History of association with unfortunates
Geographical proximity (opportunity)
Previous convictions
Known grievances towards women (motive)
Known skill or capability using a knife (means)

These are some of the criteria that are applicable.


While alcohol and drug use do increase the chances of an individual being violent in terms of their inhibitions being dropped, there is no evidence to support the idea that this would apply to a serial killer.

If anything, drug use and alcohol actually weaken a potential suspects viability as the Ripper.


Bs man for example clearly wasn't a psychopath (If Schwartz is to be believed) but rather a violent drunk.

Also, Bachert on your list has "0" for alcohol and drug use, but it was well documented that he regularly got drunk every week (on a Tuesday IIRC) and so he should score a point for that.
However, as I said, the alcohol and drug use potentially weakens candidacy as the Ripper, and so on that basis it also weakens Bachert.


Let's also take the attack on Emily Smith on 5th November 1892.
IMO, a failed Ripper attack committed by an injured/underperforming killer.
Emily noted that the man who tried to stab her mentioned specifically that he wasn't a drinker of alcohol, and was a teetotaller.
It appears the man got Emily tipsy and then chose his moment to strike just beside Shadwell railway arch; the killer's liking of assaulting women near train lines and arches being an interesting parallel.
He made a point of only drinking coffee IIRC.


These are just a few examples of course, but overall I'd say that a man known for heavy drinking, consuming drugs, walking around eating rubbish from the gutters etc... makes them less and not more likely to have been the Ripper.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm inclined to agree.

I think it risks swaying the poll unfairly Chris. I’m guessing that it wont make a huge difference to the order.

[The Rookie Detective]

I’ve almost made up my mind to remove the drink/drugs criteria. We can list a huge number of serial killers who didn’t use either. I don’t think it gives an accurate picture.

I'm inclined to agree.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve almost made up my mind to remove the drink/drugs criteria. We can list a huge number of serial killers who didn’t use either. I don’t think it gives an accurate picture.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi George,

I have to say that I’m a bit stuck on this one. Earlier I’d say that I had the books by Millington and Linnell but I’ve just checked my books twice and I don’t appear to have the Linnell book which is strange because I do have a few notes that I made after reading it. I can only assume that I must have picked it up on one of my fairly rare visits to the library. I do have the Millington book though and I’ve also checked the Deeming section in Morley’s suspect book.

I was just looking through my Kindle Library and there was the Linnell book! Why didn’t I think of that before?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

The detective was Robin Napper...Robert Napper leads down a different path.

Here's a link if you're interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQxYiUUDZqk&t=16s

Cheers, George

Cheers George, I thought about the murderer when I typed his name after reading Morley. I should have double-checked.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I have to say that I’m a bit stuck on this one. Earlier I’d say that I had the books by Millington and Linnell but I’ve just checked my books twice and I don’t appear to have the Linnell book which is strange because I do have a few notes that I made after reading it. I can only assume that I must have picked it up on one of my fairly rare visits to the library. I do have the Millington book though and I’ve also checked the Deeming section in Morley’s suspect book.

Morley mentions that it has long been accepted that Deeming was in South Africa at the time of the murders but former Scotland Yard detective Robert Napper believed that he may have been back in England (without telling us what led him to suspect that.

Roger Millington does provide a chronology in the back of his book. For the relevant part of 1888 he lists:

May 16th - Flight from Durban to England (using the name Lawson/Larsen)
Summer - Seen on racecourses (using the name Wilson)
Stock Exchange fraud (using the name Lord Kerr [Millington adds a ?])
Woos a widow in Beverley (using the name Lawson)
Unknown date in September - Marries a woman in Devonport (using the name Lawson)
September 27th - Leaves Devonport for London (using the name Lawson)
September 29th - With a dressmaker in East End (using the name Lawson)
September 30th - Confesses to Double Event (using the name Dr J Duncan)
November 7th - Leaves Devonport for London (using the name Lawson)
Early 1889 - With family in Cape Town (using the name Frederick Deeming)

According to my annoyingly scanty notes on Linnell has Deeming and his family leaving for SA in the first week of 1888 and getting back to Birkenhead on 28th or 29th September.

Hi Herlock,

The detective was Robin Napper...Robert Napper leads down a different path.

Here's a link if you're interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQxYiUUDZqk&t=16s

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I believe that modern research by Napper has statements by Deeming's family that he was living in Birkenhead at the time, but taking frequent rail trips to London. Apparently the rail link, which was new at the time, made that a relatively easy trip. That and the reports of him being acquainted with Eddowes and being in London on the night of the double event might warrant a rating of 1 in category B?

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I have to say that I’m a bit stuck on this one. Earlier I’d say that I had the books by Millington and Linnell but I’ve just checked my books twice and I don’t appear to have the Linnell book which is strange because I do have a few notes that I made after reading it. I can only assume that I must have picked it up on one of my fairly rare visits to the library. I do have the Millington book though and I’ve also checked the Deeming section in Morley’s suspect book.

Morley mentions that it has long been accepted that Deeming was in South Africa at the time of the murders but former Scotland Yard detective Robert Napper believed that he may have been back in England (without telling us what led him to suspect that.

Roger Millington does provide a chronology in the back of his book. For the relevant part of 1888 he lists:

May 16th - Flight from Durban to England (using the name Lawson/Larsen)
Summer - Seen on racecourses (using the name Wilson)
Stock Exchange fraud (using the name Lord Kerr [Millington adds a ?])
Woos a widow in Beverley (using the name Lawson)
Unknown date in September - Marries a woman in Devonport (using the name Lawson)
September 27th - Leaves Devonport for London (using the name Lawson)
September 29th - With a dressmaker in East End (using the name Lawson)
September 30th - Confesses to Double Event (using the name Dr J Duncan)
November 7th - Leaves Devonport for London (using the name Lawson)
Early 1889 - With family in Cape Town (using the name Frederick Deeming)

According to my annoyingly scanty notes on Linnell has Deeming and his family leaving for SA in the first week of 1888 and getting back to Birkenhead on 28th or 29th September.

[GBinOz]

Hi Herlock,

I believe that modern research by Napper has statements by Deeming's family that he was living in Birkenhead at the time, but taking frequent rail trips to London. Apparently the rail link, which was new at the time, made that a relatively easy trip. That and the reports of him being acquainted with Eddowes and being in London on the night of the double event might warrant a rating of 1 in category B?

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Le Grand should have at least one more point. He has a 0 in column F, when all that's needed to get one point there is a link to prostitutes. Le Grand was very linked to prostitutes. He could even get a 2 there for Hatred/dislike of women/prostitutes. I can't say for sure that he hated them, but he certainly treated them badly.

He should probably also get a 1 for physical violence using a weapon. See pp. 27-31 of Tom Wescott's article about Le Grand in Issue 2 of The Casebook Examiner (June 2010). It seems he attacked women on several occasions. The article summarizes reasons for suspicion against Le Grand as a Ripper suspect on pages 63 and 64. Maybe there are additional points besides those I've mentioned.

I’ll look into it tomorrow Lewis. Cheers.

[Lewis C]

Le Grand should have at least one more point. He has a 0 in column F, when all that's needed to get one point there is a link to prostitutes. Le Grand was very linked to prostitutes. He could even get a 2 there for Hatred/dislike of women/prostitutes. I can't say for sure that he hated them, but he certainly treated them badly.

He should probably also get a 1 for physical violence using a weapon. See pp. 27-31 of Tom Wescott's article about Le Grand in Issue 2 of The Casebook Examiner (June 2010). It seems he attacked women on several occasions. The article summarizes reasons for suspicion against Le Grand as a Ripper suspect on pages 63 and 64. Maybe there are additional points besides those I've mentioned.